--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > On May 6, 2009, at 9:37 AM, grate.swan wrote: > > > > >> Buddhist traditions of samadhi, and while the number of angas does > > >> vary, the insistence of their sequential performance in all Hindu > > >> yogic literature is quite notable, so much so that the "mechanics" of > > >> it has been delineated. And thus the yogic saying 'Those who skip the > > >> prerequisites of samadhi (i.e. the angas), even if they meditate for > > >> hundreds of years, will never attain samadhi.' > > >> > > > > > > And you base your point on one esoteric saying translated from > > > centuries ago across probably multiple languages? > > > > > > I am not defending the opposite, but you seem to hardly made a case > > > for your view. > > > > Don't assume I was interested in going into any lengthy defense. It's > > worthless to do such a thing here any longer. > > > > Really this is a kind of "yoga 101" revelation, it should hardly be > > surprising. Not to sound offensive but if you're that ignorant of > > basic yogic teachings, I'd recommend cracking a book or two first. I > > base my observations on my own direct experience and being taught by > > a lineal teacher who was part of a line that had been replicating the > > same results for centuries. The Patanjali tradition. > > Thanks for pointing out my huge omission to my list of 6 year old's arguments > the to questions about their claims (of stronger dads and better gizmos) > > 3) "You are so stupid (and thus I am not going to say more)" >
;-)
